Author
Topic: Nowhere to Run and Hide (Read 8556 times)

Religious; there is no deliverance. If there is we all go or nobody goes.

Atheist; there is no other planet to live on this is our HOME. If there is we all go or nobody goes. 5 billion years is not long enough! My bloodline may still exist.

This is it. There is nowhere to run and hide. No god/s or science is going to get us OUT. There is a very simple yet for some reason extremely complicated cure for suffering and here it is.

We have to save ourselves here on Earth. We need to cure "narcissism."

DIAGNOSIS DICTIONARYNarcissistic Personality DisorderIndividuals with narcissistic personality disorder generally believe that the world revolves around them. This condition is characterized by a lack of ability to empathize with others and a desire to keep the focus on themselves at all times.

We can cure many Mental Health Disorders by changing the society that creates it.

Yes the more I think about it the more I see mankind suffering from an epidemic of poor mental health. I think it will only hold us back if you do not make this a TOP PRIORITY!!! I see this this curing many other health problems, many. i.e. cancer, diabetes, heart problems, lung problems, or at reducing the # substantially.

The Earth is the cradle of humanity, but mankind cannot stay in the cradle forever.

Key word "potential". It has never been tried. You could only manage a few thousand people and that's if they survive the journey. How do you chose who goes? You can't.

Leaving this planet and going to another makes us not earthlings any more. What gives us the right to take what we want? That planet does not belong to us. Us being there causes another species not to exist? ugh

You could only manage a few thousand people and that's if they survive the journey. How do you chose who goes? You can't.

Stage 1: Find volunteers.Stage 2: Remove those who are physically incapable (due to physical illness) of making the journey safely.Stage 3: Remove those who are psychologically incapable of making the journey safely.Stage 4: Remove those who do not pass the physical tests astronauts go through.

You could only manage a few thousand people and that's if they survive the journey. How do you chose who goes? You can't.

Stage 1: Find volunteers.Stage 2: Remove those who are physically incapable (due to physical illness) of making the journey safely.Stage 3: Remove those who are psychologically incapable of making the journey safely.Stage 4: Remove those who do not pass the physical tests astronauts go through.

It's no better than a rapture. You both leave people behind. Morally apprehensible. You have not persuaded me other wise. Only substantiated my claim.

Uh... No. What you seem to be thinking is that some people go elsewhere while everyone else dies. This is not the goal. The goal is to establish colonies elsewhere, while the majority of people remain on Earth. We're not looking to preserve our species on another planet. We're just looking to expand where our species is.

Two factor that you might be overlooking - finite resources combined with planet wide population growth doubling every 50 years or so. There's nearly twice as many people on Earth right now than there was when I was born. This is simply not sustainable, but it's a trend that has apparently held pretty steady for a very long time. We've managed to get by this long due to significant improvements in agricultural practices and increased productivity in the last century.

Logged

"Tell people that there's an invisible man in the sky that created the entire universe and the majority believe you. Tell them the paint is wet, and they have to touch it to be sure." ~George Carlin

Yes it is. Oh yea and how will the ones left behind die. Burned up by the sun. Burned I tell you burned. Billions of people burned.

Defiance you sound like Hitler. Damn dude that is depressing. Charles Lindberg decided that was amoral a long time ago after he smelled the stink of death at a concentration camp. I watch Dark Matters. that's some scary shit.

Science fights for the planet and Science destroys the planet. It's really effed up. It's really people though. Science is just a name given to a study.

Two factor that you might be overlooking - finite resources combined with planet wide population growth doubling every 50 years or so. There's nearly twice as many people on Earth right now than there was when I was born. This is simply not sustainable, but it's a trend that has apparently held pretty steady for a very long time. We've managed to get by this long due to significant improvements in agricultural practices and increased productivity in the last century.

Thanks buddy.

Our resources are not finite. As long as there are seeds we have food. There is plenty of water. It rains and stuff. If scientist would quit effing with the atmosphere. ugh Clean Energy. That won't help with population growth because it will still be too easy to get some online or at the club getting tipsy. If we run out of oil that won't kill us. If we run out of diamonds it won't kill us. I'm learning how to grow my own food right now as we speak. I'm trying to talk TR into getting some pigs, cows and chickens too. yum yum!

Some of those agricultural practices were not good for us. Factory Farming is disgusting. That's probably why I got cancer. Eating that slop and drinking sodas.

I blame technology for the baby boom. It's too easy to get laid online. Sex is used to promote everything.

We can build skyscrapers.

I don't think we will ever cure death but we can cure the suffering caused by it for sure.

Also, we can't take sick people. Sounds wrong, but it may be like that.

1) You don't want to waste even more resources on a dying person.2) You don't want to infect others, or pass on the sickness to kids.

If we want a recolonization, we need the strongest of the humans. If we take weak or sick, we'll end up weak. Strong humans have a higher chance of creating a stronger race that can survive.

You've conflated two ideas here that don't really belong together. One is the passing of strong genes. The other is communicable illness.

Eliminating as much of the latter as possible from a colonization team makes sense. A disease that is never taken from Earth will in all likelihood never pose a problem in the future.

But the former is based on the mistaken idea that a limited, "stronger" gene pool is superior in the long run. That neglects genetic diversity, which is integral for a species to be able to evolve in the future. Also, is one's primary contribution to the expedition one of reproduction? Do we nececssarily need a space ship full of Duggars? There are other attributes to consider. Genetics aren't the only thing we pass down to the next generation.

No I'm not conflating. If we had to take even the sick, lets say HIV positive, who says that it wouldn't be spread to others and his offspring wouldn't catch it?

Therefore, if somehow we kept them (the "infected" generation") alive til we made landfall, what says that the colony would just as strong as it would be if no one had HIV?

Would you rather have a colony with HIV or no? Obviously the latter, since the first would cause serious problems, in addition to trying to conform to a new world (aka: gravity, daylight timings, etc.)

Logged

Q: Why are quantum physicists bad lovers? A: Because when they find the position, they can't find the momentum, and when they have the momentum, they can't find the position.

Yes it is. Oh yea and how will the ones left behind die. Burned up by the sun. Burned I tell you burned. Billions of people burned.

Defiance you sound like Hitler. Damn dude that is depressing. Charles Lindberg decided that was amoral a long time ago after he smelled the stink of death at a concentration camp. I watch Dark Matters. that's some scary shit.

Science fights for the planet and Science destroys the planet. It's really effed up. It's really people though. Science is just a name given to a study.

Religion tries to save souls but destroys souls.

There is nowhere to run and hide.

Can you please tell me how science prompts people to destroy the planet, completely out of their own will?

And please, explain what is so morally wrong about trying to preserve the human race? Junebug, we CAN'T take everybody simply because there are too many. And that we don't have the resources. Plus humans have imperfections that could start messing with survival.

Assuming we had 8 billion people by the time we finished a spacecraft.

Do you realise how big that space craft would be? We can't make them fit like Apollo astronauts, sinc ethat space craft is meant to be a new hone, and therefore accommodate people. I don't know but it would take lots of resources and LOTS of building materials. And it must (only way i know) be cyclindrical to spin and keep gravity. And we could only live on the outer fringes of that cylinder to have artificial gravity caused by the centrifugal forces.

Now, would you allow the sick, as in HIV, cancer, diabetic, and other diseases, to be aboard? How about serial killers and rapists? How about all the prisoners? Should we take the psychopath who, if got out, would start another killin spree? How about animals? Trees?

'Kay.

Logged

Q: Why are quantum physicists bad lovers? A: Because when they find the position, they can't find the momentum, and when they have the momentum, they can't find the position.

No I'm not conflating. If we had to take even the sick, lets say HIV positive, who says that it wouldn't be spread to others and his offspring wouldn't catch it?

Therefore, if somehow we kept them (the "infected" generation") alive til we made landfall, what says that the colony would just as strong as it would be if no one had HIV?

Would you rather have a colony with HIV or no? Obviously the latter, since the first would cause serious problems, in addition to trying to conform to a new world (aka: gravity, daylight timings, etc.)

You were talking about bringing stronger humans to create a stronger race. That isn't necessarily tied to whether they have a cold.

As to your points in this post, they aren't reasonably directed at anything I said.

But the former is based on the mistaken idea that a limited, "stronger" gene pool is superior in the long run. That neglects genetic diversity, which is integral for a species to be able to evolve in the future. Also, is one's primary contribution to the expedition one of reproduction? Do we nececssarily need a space ship full of Duggars? There are other attributes to consider. Genetics aren't the only thing we pass down to the next generation.

Surely you could pack a ship of (say) 2,000 with enough genetic diversity, but without any carriers of certain genetic conditions? Mind you, that said I doubt our first colony ship will be stuffed full of people. Far more likely it will have a minimum crew, and thousands of frozen embryos that will, most likely, already have been screened for certain conditions. Why build a ship for 2,000 when a far smaller ship can carry millions?

In fact, chances are that those embryos will have been modified so as to give them the best chance on a new colony planet - for example, removing intolerances to lactose, wheat, and so forth. While you're right that you need some kind of genetic diversity, I wonder where the right cut-off is? For example, don't make them all the same blood type, but would it be sensible to screen out the rarest types, on the basis that if they get hurt, it will be that much harder to find donors from a far smaller population?

If you ignore every other thing you've ever read from me, please do not ignore this one: "plenty of water" is absolutely not true. By many measures, a lack of access to potable/drinking water is the number one threat to survival. And it's getting worse.

I'll dig up some links, but I first had this conversation with my biology professor last fall. His area of expertise is blue-green algae, which makes him an expert in certain aspects of water quality, and kind of by default, he is highly aware of issues related to water availability. Not to freak you out, but one of the projects he's involved in is about algae production as a food crop, because there are few other realistic alternatives.

Ok, moving on.

Your view of agriculture is way too narrow. Americans eat a ridiculous amount of meat compared to pretty much everyone else on Earth. The improvements I'm talking abut that have slowed the rush toward a massive starvation event are related to crops, not livestock. We've figured out how to increase yields of grain crops, and how to make them more able to resist diseases that could wipe out an entire season.

And here's the part that's likely to upset you, and I apologize in advance for that - I see these improvement as a double edged sword. Yes, it has allowed people to survive, and in some cases, even to thrive. But thriving has not been the outcome for most. Programs like "Feed my starving children" are so compassionate I find it hard to fault their intentions. But what about the bigger picture? Yes, food is being provided to people who would otherwise starve. So now what? They're alive, what's next? The recipients obviously live in an area that is not able (for whatever the reason) to provide a sustainable food supply, so their continued survival is dependent on continued food provision. When does it end? What life have they been given? Is the mere fact of existence alone enough to continue in this manner? If all that happens is the people are given enough food to make it from one delivery to the next, how is this an improvement over a prison, or a concentration camp? If they have nothing more to live for than the next food delivery, what kind of life are we offering? It just seems that keeping people alive for the sake of keeping them alive in this manner is pretty damn close to torture.

These programs are not solutions, they are band-aids. They're not meant to be solutions either, they are meant to help people survive until real solutions can be found.

And like it or not, without controlled population growth (which is an obvious solution that's utterly impractical in application), the exportation of people to other potentially habitable planets is one that is being prepared for. If technology moves fast enough, it will be a planned departure to multiple destinations (increasing the odds of success on any by attempting to populate the most likely candidates). If not, it will be a desperate frenzy to escape whatever scenario is playing out.

And these scenarios depend on finding the political will to fund science appropriately, the political will to resist the god-botherers, other countries taking the same kinds of actions wherever possible, and surviving as a species long enough with the knowledge we gather to take any actions at all.

Quote

I blame technology for the baby boom. It's too easy to get laid online. Sex is used to promote everything.

I blame a lack of comprehensive sex ed and lack of access to dependable birth control. Your view is centered on certain lifestyles that are not the norm across the world.

Logged

"Tell people that there's an invisible man in the sky that created the entire universe and the majority believe you. Tell them the paint is wet, and they have to touch it to be sure." ~George Carlin

Yes it is. Oh yea and how will the ones left behind die. Burned up by the sun. Burned I tell you burned. Billions of people burned.

Humans have only existed for a couple of million years. Anything we'd recognize as organized civilization has only been around for a couple of hundred thousand years.

The sun won't start burning up the Earth for another couple of billion years. That's about 1000 times the duration of humans existence on Earth so far.

We have more pressing matters to concern ourselves with.

It will take that long to save us all!!! Unless there is/are God/s.

My point is this. There is a very DARK side to science that is just as scary as anything found in religion. The things that are causing climate change are/were created by scientist. The cause for over population, created by scientist and the excuse we're animals, we can not help ourselves. Granted there are other causes for over population such as low self esteems and narcissism.

If you ignore every other thing you've ever read from me, please do not ignore this one: "plenty of water" is absolutely not true. By many measures, a lack of access to potable/drinking water is the number one threat to survival. And it's getting worse.

I'll dig up some links, but I first had this conversation with my biology professor last fall. His area of expertise is blue-green algae, which makes him an expert in certain aspects of water quality, and kind of by default, he is highly aware of issues related to water availability. Not to freak you out, but one of the projects he's involved in is about algae production as a food crop, because there are few other realistic alternatives.

Ok, moving on.

Your view of agriculture is way too narrow. Americans eat a ridiculous amount of meat compared to pretty much everyone else on Earth. The improvements I'm talking abut that have slowed the rush toward a massive starvation event are related to crops, not livestock. We've figured out how to increase yields of grain crops, and how to make them more able to resist diseases that could wipe out an entire season.

And here's the part that's likely to upset you, and I apologize in advance for that - I see these improvement as a double edged sword. Yes, it has allowed people to survive, and in some cases, even to thrive. But thriving has not been the outcome for most. Programs like "Feed my starving children" are so compassionate I find it hard to fault their intentions. But what about the bigger picture? Yes, food is being provided to people who would otherwise starve. So now what? They're alive, what's next? The recipients obviously live in an area that is not able (for whatever the reason) to provide a sustainable food supply, so their continued survival is dependent on continued food provision. When does it end? What life have they been given? Is the mere fact of existence alone enough to continue in this manner? If all that happens is the people are given enough food to make it from one delivery to the next, how is this an improvement over a prison, or a concentration camp? If they have nothing more to live for than the next food delivery, what kind of life are we offering? It just seems that keeping people alive for the sake of keeping them alive in this manner is pretty damn close to torture.

These programs are not solutions, they are band-aids. They're not meant to be solutions either, they are meant to help people survive until real solutions can be found.

And like it or not, without controlled population growth (which is an obvious solution that's utterly impractical in application), the exportation of people to other potentially habitable planets is one that is being prepared for. If technology moves fast enough, it will be a planned departure to multiple destinations (increasing the odds of success on any by attempting to populate the most likely candidates). If not, it will be a desperate frenzy to escape whatever scenario is playing out.

And these scenarios depend on finding the political will to fund science appropriately, the political will to resist the god-botherers, other countries taking the same kinds of actions wherever possible, and surviving as a species long enough with the knowledge we gather to take any actions at all.

Quote

I blame technology for the baby boom. It's too easy to get laid online. Sex is used to promote everything.

I blame a lack of comprehensive sex ed and lack of access to dependable birth control. Your view is centered on certain lifestyles that are not the norm across the world.

Jag your reply leads me to believe you misunderstand one thing. I am talking about after we get rid of pollution and doing the things necessary to preserve our most precious commodity.

But the former is based on the mistaken idea that a limited, "stronger" gene pool is superior in the long run. That neglects genetic diversity, which is integral for a species to be able to evolve in the future. Also, is one's primary contribution to the expedition one of reproduction? Do we nececssarily need a space ship full of Duggars? There are other attributes to consider. Genetics aren't the only thing we pass down to the next generation.

Surely you could pack a ship of (say) 2,000 with enough genetic diversity, but without any carriers of certain genetic conditions? Mind you, that said I doubt our first colony ship will be stuffed full of people. Far more likely it will have a minimum crew, and thousands of frozen embryos that will, most likely, already have been screened for certain conditions. Why build a ship for 2,000 when a far smaller ship can carry millions?

In fact, chances are that those embryos will have been modified so as to give them the best chance on a new colony planet - for example, removing intolerances to lactose, wheat, and so forth. While you're right that you need some kind of genetic diversity, I wonder where the right cut-off is? For example, don't make them all the same blood type, but would it be sensible to screen out the rarest types, on the basis that if they get hurt, it will be that much harder to find donors from a far smaller population?

Build more damn ships. ugh!

It wasn't morally acceptable for the Titanic and it is not morally acceptable here.

The cause for over population, created by scientist and the excuse we're animals, we can not help ourselves. Granted there are other causes for over population such as low self esteems and narcissism.

Areas with more scientific knowledge (ie. first world countries) tend to have lower rates of population growth. As for causes of overpopulation, I think the main one is peoples' desires to have a family. Apparently that's evil.

Jag your reply leads me to believe you misunderstand one thing. I am talking about after we get rid of pollution and doing the things necessary to preserve our most precious commodity.

I know. What I'm saying is that "after we get rid of pollution" is a painfully vague timeline, and in anticipation of that being impossible (due to a worldwide population that doubles roughly every 50 years or so, among many, many others things), we need to make alternative plans. There's absolutely no reason to think that we, as a species, are suddenly going to STOP reproducing at this rate, so any plans for the "future of mankind" necessarily will include options to populate other potentially habitable planets.

I'm not suggesting that we should stop trying to correct climate change/pollution, but that's not going to be enough. Short of some disaster that eliminates a significant portion of the population, or some out-of-nowhere choice to limit population growth, what else CAN we do? Your position about "deserving" another planet still assumes a "reason" for existence - by and large, the people you are addressing your questions to do not share that assumption.

Logged

"Tell people that there's an invisible man in the sky that created the entire universe and the majority believe you. Tell them the paint is wet, and they have to touch it to be sure." ~George Carlin

There is a very DARK side to science that is just as scary as anything found in religion. The things that are causing climate change are/were created by scientist.

FOUND by scientists, discovered by scientists, and in some cases, implemented for ultimately destructive ends by scientists. Scientists are humans too. They do exercise bad judgment just like any other human, and sometimes their life work is turned to ends that they would not have chosen. Electricity is a damn handy tool. It's also used to kill people on purpose. I still prefer to have it.

Do you realize that by and large, most scientists do not owe the rights to their discoveries, so they have no say over the applications of their discoveries. If science was funded by the government, rather than by corporate sponsors who demand a return on their investment, we'd be seeing a very different scientific landscape in this country.

Quote

The cause for over population, created by scientist and the excuse we're animals, we can not help ourselves. Granted there are other causes for over population such as low self esteems and narcissism.

Honestly jb, where did you come up with that idea? How is overpopulation caused by scientists? Scientists are the reason we have effective methods of birth control, whether we can access it or not - it does exist, and we have scientists to thank for it. Low self esteem and narcissism? How about third world countries where most children die before the age of 2 and birth control is either culturally taboo, or impossible to obtain? How about religious families like the Duggars? I can't make sense of your position that science is the cause of overpopulation, please clarify.

« Last Edit: June 30, 2014, 04:15:48 PM by Jag »

Logged

"Tell people that there's an invisible man in the sky that created the entire universe and the majority believe you. Tell them the paint is wet, and they have to touch it to be sure." ~George Carlin